Skip to content

GHSA-c969-5x3p-vq3v CVE-2026-57130 PYSEC-2026-3532

PraisonAI: IMAP Command Injection via Unsanitized Email Search Parameters

High PyPI
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.46%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.09% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Fix
1.6.59
Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later

Description

Summary

The email search tool in src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/tools/email_tools.py constructs IMAP SEARCH commands by interpolating LLM-controlled parameters (from_addr, subject, query) directly into IMAP protocol strings using f-string formatting with double-quote delimiters. An attacker who can influence the arguments to the search_emails or reply_email tool (via crafted agent prompts) can inject arbitrary IMAP commands, potentially exfiltrating email data from other folders, deleting emails, or performing other unauthorized IMAP operations.

Details

Vulnerable code (lines 493–502):

criteria = []
if from_addr:
    criteria.append(f'FROM "{from_addr}"')
if subject:
    criteria.append(f'SUBJECT "{subject}"')
if query:
    criteria.append(f'TEXT "{query}"')
if not criteria:
    criteria.append("ALL")
search_str = " ".join(criteria)
status, data = mail.search(None, search_str)

The from_addr, subject, and query parameters originate from LLM tool call arguments (the search_emails public function at line 665). These values flow through without any sanitization or escaping. The double-quote (") characters in these parameters allow breaking out of the IMAP SEARCH quoted string context.

Additional injection points:

  • Line 416: mail.search(None, f'HEADER Message-ID "{search_id}"')
  • Line 447: Same pattern in _smtp_reply_email
  • Line 542: Same pattern in _smtp_archive_email

The search_id / message_id parameter in these functions is also LLM-controlled via the reply_email and archive_email public tool functions.

Reachability: The search_emails, reply_email, and archive_email functions are exposed as agent tools. They are reachable when an agent is configured with email tools (EMAIL_ADDRESS + EMAIL_PASSWORD environment variables set). This is a documented deployment scenario for email-capable agents.

PoC

Setup: Requires an IMAP server (not run here — this is a static proof). The vulnerability is demonstrated by tracing the data flow.

Positive trigger — IMAP injection via search_emails: An LLM agent processing a crafted prompt calls:

search_emails(from_addr='user@example.com" LOGOUT')

This produces the IMAP command:

SEARCH FROM "user@example.com" LOGOUT"

The LOGOUT command is injected after the prematurely closed quoted string, causing the IMAP connection to be terminated.

More severe injection — exfiltrate emails from another folder:

search_emails(query='" SEARCH RETURN (MIN) ALL')

Produces: TEXT "" SEARCH RETURN (MIN) ALL" — injects a secondary SEARCH command.

Negative control — legitimate search:

search_emails(from_addr='user@example.com')

Produces: FROM "user@example.com" — correct, no injection.

Cleanup: No persistent changes for read-only injection. For destructive injection (DELETE, EXPUNGE), impact persists.

Impact

An attacker who can craft prompts that cause an LLM agent to call search_emails with injection payloads can:

  • Terminate IMAP connections (denial of service)
  • Inject arbitrary IMAP commands — including LIST (enumerate folders), SELECT (switch folders), FETCH (read emails from other mailboxes), STORE (modify flags), COPY/MOVE (move emails), DELETE/EXPUNGE (permanently delete emails)
  • Exfiltrate email contents from folders the user did not intend to expose to the agent
  • Permanently delete emails via injected DELETE + EXPUNGE commands

The attack requires the IMAP backend to be configured (EMAIL_ADDRESS + EMAIL_PASSWORD env vars), which is a documented and common deployment for email-capable agents.

Suggested remediation

  1. Escape double-quote characters in IMAP parameters. Per RFC 3501, literal strings use {n}\r\n format or quoted strings with \ escaping:
def _escape_imap_string(s: str) -> str:
    """Escape a string for safe use in IMAP quoted strings."""
    # Use IMAP literal syntax for safety: {length}\r\n<data>
    encoded = s.encode('utf-8')
    return f'{{{len(encoded)}}}\r\n{encoded}'
  1. Use IMAP literal syntax ({n}\r\ndata) instead of quoted strings for all user-controlled parameters. This prevents any injection regardless of content.

  2. Apply the escaping to all IMAP search criteria parameters: from_addr, subject, query, and search_id/message_id.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonaiagents
< 1.6.59
1.6.59

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

praisonaiagents PyPI → 1.6.59

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"
poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"
uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
  • Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
  • System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-gxmw-5f7x-6g22
praisonaiagents vulnerable to arbitrary file write via unsanitized `user_id` in `FileMemory.__init__()` — path traversal to any writable location
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-cfxv-8fw8-rwpv
praisonaiagents: ast_grep_rewrite rewrites arbitrary files without the @require_approval gate enforced on every sibling mutation tool
Medium Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-x44h-65qv-cw74
praisonaiagents has an SSRF protection bypass in `spider_tools._host_is_blocked()` via DNS-resolved hostnames (`127.0.0.1.nip.io`)
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-7g3p-92qq-8wvh
praisonaiagents: AgentServer declares auth_token but never enforces it on any route
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-5r34-2g38-6569
praisonaiagents web_crawl vulnerable to SSRF via redirect-following
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-vg6p-v9vm-6fgj
praisonaiagents vulnerable to SSRF in web_crawl tool via redirect-following and DNS rebinding (validate-then-fetch gap)
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-8hjw-25cg-g52h
praisonaiagents has a `web_crawl` SSRF protection bypass via unchecked redirect targets
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-hxmv-c4g6-5fqc
PraisonAI workflow include bypasses tools.py autoload opt-in and executes included recipe code
High Also affects praisonaiagents
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor